most nationalist parties are or right-wing or far-right, also, nationalism is about caring about your nation first, which sounds more nativist then liberal, while liberalism is about equality, liberty and civil rights for E V E R Y O N E, nationalism is about self-government and doesn't want countries interferencing with it, a case of nationalism is the Lega Nord, an Anti-Immigration party that is also Eurosceptist, the EU is a supranational union, which sounds pretty liberal, another case is the national front, anti-immigration and at the same time nationalist

most nationalist parties are or right-wing or far-right, also, nationalism is about caring about your nation first, which sounds more nativist then liberal, while liberalism is about equality, liberty and civil rights for E V E R Y O N E, nationalism is about self-government and doesn't want countries interferencing with it, a case of nationalism is the Lega Nord, an Anti-Immigration party that is also Eurosceptist, the EU is a supranational union, which sounds pretty liberal, another case is the national front, anti-immigration and at the same time nationalist

most nationalist parties are or right-wing or far-right, also, nationalism is about caring about your nation first, which sounds more nativist then liberal, while liberalism is about equality, liberty and civil rights for E V E R Y O N E, nationalism is about self-government and doesn't want countries interferencing with it, a case of nationalism is the Lega Nord, an Anti-Immigration party that is also Eurosceptist, the EU is a supranational union, which sounds pretty liberal, another case is the national front, anti-immigration and at the same time nationalist

Your thoughts on ideals are poorly meant, not to mention the denial of nationalism your have shown therefore the agurment against your poltical values and ideas that you have implyed are invalid. The facts are right there! Any you didn't notice it.

So where are arguments against that I said? I noticed that it is very usual that when I speak with some anti-historicals they just tell me that they showed me argument withous showing them.

And I am not nationalist. Nationalist it that who wants a strong idea of nation. I am Byzantist. I respect idea of Sacred Monarchy and non-national empire. And only reason why I am telling you that "Ukraine" is not a nation it that it is just a fact.

That I am speaking that something is not a nation is not same thing as nationalism. I just tell a fact. Ukraine is not even trying to be a nation. They speak mostly Russian, even some Ultranationalists, their systems of mass informations speak about Russia all the time and they demonstrate to everyone their "independent culture", ignoring that 90% is Southern Russian, other is Polish and Turkic. Ukraine tries to be somthing like anti-Russia in all way, not independent nation.

I am not speaking about empire just now. It is noe thing when you influence, conquer or do something else with other nations. But they are still nations. If Germans will conquer Sweden Swedes will not become Germans. And now we have here a situation where a big part of Rus nation is just in vitro separated from ohter nation. This is not normal and I am protesting against it. I am not nationalist but that does not will that I must like destruction of my nation. Same thing with Macedonia - it is Bulgarian and have nothing to do with Alexander the Great except maybe territory and some other little things. There is a difference between nationalism and protesting partition of your country.

They happen to speak different languages, the language and culture is stil somewhat varied. Although you have not to care for Ukrainians autonomy which you show no concern or regards towards the subject.

I implyed Russian Empire because it is on the closest descriptions on your belief that Ukraine is Russian. However, Ukrainian and Russian are two different languages. And if so, they could be considered brothers.

Simply to the baltics, Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia all have similar languages and cultures. Yet they are seperate countries. And a not implyed to be one country. Except Yugoslav of course.

Ukrainan is just dialect of one Rus language, as well as Russian. And you didn't understand, what I said. Yes, there is Ukrainan/Malorossian dialect. It has been influenced by Polish and Turkic ("Maidan" is Turkic word) after Mongolian invasion and Polish-Lithuanian occupation and moving of Rus center from Kiev, Galic, Chernigov and Polotsk to the East to Vladimir-Suzdal, Tver and Muscuvy that stated to happen even before Mongolian invasion, which made these territories wilder, poorer and more village-like, despite their great history. In some things Ukrainan was even influenced lesser than Velikorossian. BUT. In modern-day Ukraine maybe 90% people cpeak modern Russian, not Ukrainan. In Russia it's actually a meme, that Ukrainan nationalists hate Russian language but they still speak it when they are not on important ceremony or something like that. Many people don't even known Ukrainan and yell "Fuck Russia!" and "Putin is penis!" on Russian.

"Ukrainan autonomy"? In Czardom of Russia and Russian empire noone thought that Malorossians were not Russians, even Malorossians themselves and even these who disliked Velikorossians. Hundred years ago modern-day Ukrainan territory was actually center of Russian nationalism. It was a center of Black Hundreds -movement. Difference between Velikorossians and Malorossians was pretty same as difference between modern-day North and South in USA. Velikorossia was center of the state, their population was more liberal and more Western-influenced, and in same time Malorossians lived in villages and were more Conservative, just like Rednecks.

It is actually very difficult question are Slovenians, Croats and Serbs one or not.

In some way they both are, of course. In some way FYROM is Macedon's successor too.

But Russia is exactly same state as Russia. There is such a thing as governmental succession.

History of Russian statedom starts from Calling of Rurik in Old Ladoga ad Gardricea. Rurik was the first knyaz. Then the center of Russia moved to different cities, Great Novgorod, Kiev, Vladimir, Suzdal, Tver. But that was the same statedom. Even under Mongol rule. There was great knyaz of all Rus, he was in Kiev, he was in Tver, in different cities and he fought other knyazs but still there was one statedom of Rus of knyzdoms with one main knyazdom than ruled all. And in some point of the history, the state was reformed into Tsardom of Russia. And everything¨that was after it, Russian Empire, RSFSR, Russian Federation, they all are successors of Kievan Rus. And in which way Ukrainan statedom is a successor of Kievan Rus?

Also Ukrainan "national identity" is based on resisting everything Russian, including that was in Kievan Rus. They try to connect their "non-Russian" culture with derussoficated cossak culture, but that just doesn't fit. Because Kievan Rus was purily Russian and cossakism is a mix of Turkic and Russian culture.

P.S. "Kievan Rus" is a modern term. In reality Kievan Rus existed before Kiev was even founded and on other territories - Old Ladoga and Great Novgorod.